Mikeb302000 is not the major voice for gun control. That honor belongs to the Brady Campaign for the Prevention of Gun Violence. But the bombastic Brady Bunch don’t blog often. Well, not often enough for TTAG’s insatiable electronic maw. And Mikeb302000 is almost as editorially manic as yours truly. Bonus! He’s been known to comment over here, giving our Armed Intelligentsia a chance to engage. And for that we are truly grateful. And for this, Mikeb302000’s three-point plan to give gun rights advocates something to fight against for the next twelve months or more . . .
I suggest a three-pronged attack. 1. full licensing and registration and strict controls on new gun purchases. That would eliminate straw purchasing. And 2. background checks on every transfer. That would eliminate all those supposedly inadvertent private gun sales to criminals. And 3. enhanced and strictly enforced safe storage laws. This would cut down on theft.
Firearms registration is one of those slippery slopes to gun grabbing tyranny deals. In other words, it’s hard to argue against thew concept without sounding like a gunloon. (We try.) Background checks? Same thing, only worse. But it is the last idea that is the most insidious.
How can safe storage laws be “strictly enforced” without the government entering your home? Penalties for failing to store a weapon safely would merely be one of those closing the gate after the horse has bolted deals. A good idea if there are more horses. But still, a home visit is the only way to make sure gun owners are following the law.
Joy. Anyway, I’m thinking that Mikeb302000 would probably agree that revoking a firearms license would be the appropriate penalty for improper storage. Lock it or lose it? How great is that? Cause here’s the thing . . .
On one hand, locking-up a firearm is the best way to reduce (not eliminate) theft and provide safety against possible in situ suicides and thwart children and other potential cat-killed curiosity seekers. On the other hand, locking-up a firearm is the best way to reduce (not eliminate) readiness to repel home invaders.
I know! Let’s let firearms owners decide what level of security they need for their firearms! No wait. Hear me out. If they don’t have children or mentally ill people hanging around the house, they could have less security and more readiness than people who do! All they’d need to make that judgement is . . . judgement.
And if they lack that judgement and something bad happens, well, that’s the way it goes in a country where the police can’t knock down your door without proving to a judge that there’s probably cause that a crime’s been committed. Unless . . .
Owning a gun in a house with children or a high crime area where thefts occur is probable cause enough for a search to make sure I’m not breaking the law mandating safe storage. Brilliant! I’m convinced. Where do I sign?